Podcast Source: Unchained

Compiled by: BitpushNews

Guests:

Peter Hans: Partner and Global Business Development Director at Hack VC

Jon Charbonneau: Co-founder and General Partner at DBA

Host: Laura Shin

About DATs: Trend or Fad?

Laura: Everyone is saying that the craze for DATs (Digital Asset Treasury) might be coming to an end, but we still see many new projects, such as Sharps Technology announcing it will raise $400 million to create SolanaDAT. What do you think?

Peter: Before I start, I want to clarify that the following represents my personal views and does not constitute investment advice.

As of now, the DAT cycle is not over, and new products are still being launched. However, this is not a phenomenon unique to crypto. In traditional financial markets, any structured tool that can make money will be continuously replicated. From mortgage-backed securities to today’s digital asset trusts, the logic is similar.

Solana, as the third-largest asset after BTC and ETH, launching DAT is a natural progression. But the problem is that investors already have alternatives like spot, futures, and ETFs, so they don’t necessarily need this tool. In the long run, the underlying financial infrastructure will gradually move on-chain, so the ultimate goal of these DATs may not be clear, which is a risk in itself. But it’s understandable why people are willing to issue them.

Jon: I thought I wouldn’t have to study such complex financial engineering after leaving the banking industry, but I’ve been forced to pay attention again recently. Although we haven’t invested, they do drive market liquidity, so it’s necessary to understand them.

Overall, I think most DATs are a way to "raise money": putting assets in a box and selling it at a premium. But this bubble is deflating, new issuances are becoming difficult, and market acceptance is declining. In the medium term, they do have a role in regulatory arbitrage. For example, many assets don’t have ETFs, and if investors want exposure, they can only use these tools. Especially for PoS assets like ETH and SOL, if ETFs cannot participate in staking, then DATs have a competitive advantage because they can help investors earn returns.

In a sense, DATs are more like asset managers: investors hand over funds to them, expecting to earn risk-adjusted returns through staking or DeFi, which ETFs currently cannot provide. So, if the managers are reliable, DATs still have significance at this stage.

Laura: Some have pointed out that some Solana DATs actually include locked assets sold by FTX, contributed in almost without discount in exchange for DAT shares, allowing holders to exit early. Is this true?

Jon: It’s not a blanket statement. More reputable DATs will primarily use cash and have well-designed yield strategies. But there are indeed some DATs that include locked assets, such as SOL from FTX.

This is both a risk and an opportunity. Locked assets should theoretically be discounted, for example, trading at 70-80% of market price; otherwise, it would be unfair to investors. If DATs can trade at reasonable discounts in the future, they might become an attractive investment method while also reducing selling pressure in the secondary market.

Peter: The long-term viability of DATs hinges on whether they can maintain premium trading. If DAT shares consistently trade above NAV, they can continuously raise funds and buy more spot assets, creating a positive cycle; but once they fall below NAV, each fundraising will dilute the book value, leading to a vicious cycle.

The Narrative Shift of ETH: Will SOL Be Next?

Laura: We’ve seen Ethereum’s popularity suddenly rebound. The inflow of ETH ETFs even surpassed that of Bitcoin ETFs. Why is that?

Jon: This is actually a classic case of "momentum trading." ETH was undervalued in the previous phase, and now with narratives like stablecoins and Circle backing it, it has become a hotspot for capital. TradFi investors see the share of stablecoins on Ethereum, which is an easily understandable growth pie chart. Once ETH completes this wave, Solana is likely to replicate the same logic: faster, cheaper, and the next narrative will shift to it.

Peter: Financial markets are narrative-driven. The story of ETH has quickly shifted from "a dinosaur, about to die" to "a global settlement layer." Traditional investors cannot analyze Bitcoin like they do stocks, but ETH at least provides a framework of "revenue, fees, and valuation." That’s why the narrative switch happens so quickly.

Stablecoin-Specific Chains: Necessary or Redundant?

Laura: We see Stripe launching Tempo, Circle launching Arc, Tether launching Stable, and Bitfinex supporting Plasma. Why do we need stablecoin-specific chains?

Peter: Simply put, since it’s a dollar transfer, I want to pay the "transaction fee" in dollars, not ETH or TRX. Logically, this makes sense. But the real key is distribution capability. For example, Stripe has a vast merchant network, and if they decide to use their own chain as the backend, they could quickly establish a scale advantage.

Jon: Currently, most so-called stablecoin chains are actually EVM chains, with little technical difference. Arc might leverage Circle’s identity to facilitate fiat on- and off-ramps more smoothly; while Stripe’s Tempo is more interesting because it truly controls the end-user distribution capability. Besides that, privacy is also a potential differentiator. Traditional enterprises and users cannot accept a completely transparent chain for all fund flows, so whoever can find a balance between privacy and compliance may come out on top.

Hyperliquid vs Binance: The True Challenger of DeFi?

Laura: Hyperliquid’s trading volume reached $330.8 billion in July, surpassing Robinhood for the first time. Jon, you even called it "the first DeFi platform that can truly compete with centralized exchanges." Why?

Jon: For the past few years, everyone has been saying "we want to take down Binance," but that felt more like a meme. It wasn’t until Hyperliquid appeared that I thought this could really happen. They have consistently led in perpetual contracts and pre-launch markets, with major price discovery for tokens like Pump, World Liberty, and Plasma happening on Hyperliquid rather than other exchanges.

What’s even more surprising is that Hyperliquid briefly surpassed Coinbase and Bybit in the spot market. A whale completed a swap of billions of dollars worth of BTC and ETH directly on the platform through bridging, indicating it has the depth and stability to handle large trades.

But what’s more revolutionary is the potential for permissionless listing. If Hyperliquid aggregates enough liquidity and users, project teams will no longer need to endure Binance’s "harsh conditions" to launch. Many teams have complained in the past that listing on CEX often means being forced to give up a large number of tokens or accept high hidden costs. This kind of "exploitation" puts startup projects at a disadvantage. Hyperliquid’s model, however, is completely free: anyone can list contracts or spot trading pairs without going through centralized approval.

This will fundamentally change the market structure, giving project teams more autonomy. Jon believes this is the first real opportunity for DeFi to "liberate project teams" from the stranglehold of centralized exchanges.

Peter: I completely agree. This is not just a good product; it’s a healthy addition to the industry. Competition brings vitality. Hyperliquid’s tokenomics are well-designed: fee buybacks and staking incentives give the HYPE token visible value support. Binance succeeded through a similar model in the past. Now, Hyperliquid is replicating that logic but is more aligned with the spirit of Web3.

In Peter’s view, this means Hyperliquid is no longer just "another DEX," but a competitor that can directly challenge Binance’s monopoly on token listings.

No KYC Model: A Moat or Regulatory Risk?

Laura: Hyperliquid does not have KYC; will this become a competitive advantage?

Jon: It depends on how future regulations are implemented. A truly decentralized system may not be able to, nor need to, do KYC, which could actually be a moat. Just like Ethereum doesn’t require you to submit an ID to transfer ETH, Hyperliquid may have a systemic advantage because of its "non-enforceable KYC." However, if you are an institutional investor under SEC regulation, the responsibility for any illegal trading will still fall on you, not the protocol.

Is the Four-Year Cycle Dead?

Laura: One last question—does the "Bitcoin halving four-year cycle" still exist in the crypto market?

Peter: In my view, the logic of cycles is increasingly being replaced by liquidity, narratives, and regulatory events. The crypto market is no longer just a simple "halving bull market—bear market cycle," but is driven by multidimensional capital flows and structural products.

Jon: Yes, the current volatility comes more from policies, macro liquidity, and new narrative tools like DATs and Hyperliquid. The certainty of the four-year cycle is fading.

Summary

The two VCs’ assessments of the crypto market are as follows:

• DATs are still a product of financial engineering, but their value lies in short-term regulatory arbitrage;
• The narratives of Ethereum and Solana are alternating, with stablecoins as a new growth point;
• Hyperliquid is no longer just "another DEX," but the first true decentralized competitor challenging Binance;
• The myth of the four-year cycle has gradually been replaced by new capital logic and product innovation.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。